Not fired yet

[quincy]

Quincy, my question is, if the employer tells other employees this guy is a loser, can't be trusted, has perhaps done something dishonest...even so, what would be his demonstrated losses as a result of it? I thought, please educate me, that there had to be some potential that the employee so maligned had to be able to show that it had hurt him in some way other than his feelings and sense of well being.

While the employer certainly should be careful to say only true things about the worker, it has been my experience that many many employers create falsehoods and reasons to terminate that have very little to do with reality, have never really seen this followed through on with a defamation action. Is it possible, likely, a potential to prove that the employer has lied and sue them for defamation?

If an employer tells other employees that this guy is a loser, that is an opinion that would be unwise perhaps for any employer to make but it is one that is subjective and could not support a defamation claim. If an employer tells other employees that this guy can't be trusted, however, that implies facts that, if not true, could support a defamation claim. The employer, if he says anything at all, should provide examples as to why he has concluded the employee is untrustworthy (ie, true facts that the employee has lied about such and such or something). That way, the employees are able to draw their own conclusions based on the disclosed facts.

One of the least understood aspects of defamation is the fact that the injury in defamation is to the reputation of a person and demonstrated damages do not have to be monetary losses. There are many ways reputational injury can be demonstrated that do not include economic losses.

What needs to be shown is that defamatory statements were made and damage to one's reputation has followed the defamatory statements. Proof of reputational injury that can support an award of damages can be resulting health issues (sleep problems, drinking problems, appetite problems, emotional problems) or evidence of shunning by others as a result of the defamatory statements. In some cases, the defamed person's own hearsay testimony can be sufficient to show this reputational "loss."

Beside general damages awarded for reputational injury, there can be compensatory damages awarded - and here is where monetary losses come into play. Actual monetary losses (loss of income, loss of promotion, etc) can be used to support an award of damages. A defamed person can show what his earning capacity was pre-defamation and what his earning capacity is post-defamation. Experts can be called on to show earning trends, and what the potential earnings are ordinarily in the defamed person's field. The defamed person can be compensated not only for the actual losses he has suffered, but also for being deprived of future earnings due to the reputational injury suffered as a result of the defamatory statements.

And then there is the possibility of an award of punitive damages, for defamatory statements that are especially egregious.

With all of that said, defamation suits may not be filed by an employee against his employer because an employee finds another job, or he does not realize he has legal options available, or he cannot afford the legal options available, or he has weighed the pros and cons of suing his employer and the cons outweigh the pros, or the facts do not sufficiently support a successful action. . . . there are all sorts of reasons.

Defamation suits are not rare but those filed by employees against employers may be settled quickly to avoid public scrutiny.

 

[jjsjjba]

Thank You

Thanks for all the feedback, it's been very encouraging at a time in need.
I wanted to ask: I had a garnishment from a student loan that I was not notified of by my employer before they started deducting from my check, because I've been out of school for so long and was so frustrated when my check begin to look like a mortgage payment was being snatched from it I just let the 6k run it's course until two weeks ago when I learned that two big payments didn't make it to the student loan agency. I am still waiting to find out where all the money went, but was informed that part of it was used to pay off interested on another loan/garnishment that I thought was paid in full 2011 and I'm catching tension from payroll about my money... More insult to injury: I was told at least 3 years ago that I could no longer expense internet service (I work from home and I need the internet to connect to my company's network to do my job). The reason I was told my manager that I could no longer expense internet was "if you didn't work from home you'd still have internet service...like most people do". I joined a meeting with my peer and interim manager last month and heard them talking about expenses, internet service was one they both claimed each month. I asked about this and my interim manager said he would check with my manager... he came back a day later and said "beginning this month you can start re-claiming this expense starting this month".

 

[commentator]

The only thing I can say is that yes, you're being treated poorly. They're trying to get rid of you. Giving you or not giving you the right to expense your internet service is something they have discretion to do or not do. You have the option to not like it, of course, but as I keep repeating, they do not have to treat you fairly. They do not have to give you the same things they give others. They can make you the lowest person on the totem pole, even after years of your being a good and diligent employee.

They don't have to be nice to you. As quincy says, they shouldn't lie against you, but they can certainly demote you. Your alternative is to seek another job. Meantime, keep trying to work out your problems with them internally, because if you are terminated, you'll have a trail of things you've tried to solve. Or if eventually you are forced to quit, it will look very well for you if you have been proactive and have tried to work out your issues with them and have exhausted every reasonable alternative to quitting the job.

 

[jjsjjba]

I see your point clearly

The only thing I can say is that yes, you're being treated poorly. They're trying to get rid of you. Giving you or not giving you the right to expense your internet service is something they have discretion to do or not do. You have the option to not like it, of course, but as I keep repeating, they do not have to treat you fairly. They do not have to give you the same things they give others. They can make you the lowest person on the totem pole, even after years of your being a good and diligent employee.

They don't have to be nice to you. As quincy says, they shouldn't lie against you, but they can certainly demote you. Your alternative is to seek another job. Meantime, keep trying to work out your problems with them internally, because if you are terminated, you'll have a trail of things you've tried to solve. Or if eventually you are forced to quit, it will look very well for you if you have been proactive and have tried to work out your issues with them and have exhausted every reasonable alternative to quitting the job.

This makes total sense to me and I appreciate you sharing the advise.